M/S Shyam Sunder Girdhar Gopal vs. The State Of Rajasthan

Facts

The petitioner, M/s Shyam Sunder Girdhar Gopal, filed three writ petitions challenging identical orders dated 22.04.2021 passed by the Joint Commissioner, State Tax, Circle Nagaur, under Section 74(1) of the Rajasthan Goods & Service Tax Act, 2017 (RGST Act, 2017). These orders levied tax, interest, and penalty upon the petitioner. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the writ petitions, citing the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. They also argued that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, having suppressed material facts and specifically opted out of a personal hearing in Form GST DRC-06.

Held

The Court held that the writ petitions were not maintainable. Regarding the issue of natural justice, the Court noted that the petitioner had consciously opted out of a personal hearing by selecting 'No' in Form GST DRC-06. Therefore, the impugned orders could not be branded as having been passed in breach of the principles of natural justice. The Court found support for the non-maintainability of the writ petitions in the Supreme Court's judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax vs M/s Commercial Steel Ltd., which emphasizes the availability of the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act. Consequently, the Court did not delve into the issue of concealment of material facts. The petitioner was relegated to approach the appellate authority by filing appeals against the impugned orders under Section 107 of the CGST Act. The writ petitions were dismissed, but this dismissal was not to preclude the petitioner from availing the statutory remedy of appeal.

Key Issues

1. Whether the writ petitions are maintainable in light of the availability of a statutory remedy of appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act? (Question of law) 2. Whether the impugned assessment orders were passed in violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically concerning the opportunity of personal hearing? (Question of mixed law and fact) The petitioner argued that the impugned orders were passed in breach of natural justice. The respondents contended that the writ petitions were not maintainable as a statutory appeal under Section 107 of the CGST Act was available. They relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Assistant Commissioner of State Tax & Ors. vs M/s Commercial Steel Ltd. They further argued that the petitioner had not approached the court with clean hands, citing the petitioner's explicit choice to forgo a personal hearing in Form GST DRC-06, and relied on Bhaskar Laxman Jadhav & Ors. vs Karamveer Kakasaheb Wagh Education Society & Ors.